Edge and Bing

In article , Bill
wrote:

As far as Apple goes, when I downloaded I-Tunes, it converted all of my
mp3 files (thousands of them) into a different format without my
permission.

no it very definitely did not do that.

transcoding music in itunes is user initiated, requiring the user to
first manually select songs and then select convert, along with having
previously chosen which format, bit rate, cbr/vbr, etc.

transcoding does *not* happen automatically or without warning.

also, transcoding *adds* a new version of the song alongside the
original, which is left untouched and unmodified. nothing is deleted.

that means you'll end up with *two* copies of each song, which would
require significant additional disk space for all of the thousands of
newly converted songs.

not only that, but converting thousands of mp3s would take a
significant amount of time, something which would be obvious as to
what's happening, and during which time you could cancel at any point.

so no, it did *not* convert your mp3 files to another format without
permission or without your knowledge. not possible.

I'd call that "attitude", or call it what you like
(presumptuous?). Either way, it's obnoxious.

i'd call that completely impossible as described.

If you don't like
"personification"... maybe it would be more fair to say that software
reflects the attitude of the people who are responsible for it. And
where it is poor, those people deserve to be called out for the PITA
they created.

what would be fair is to not misrepresent what happened.


It must be quite wonderful to have the answer to everything right at the
tip of your fingertips...with attitude to boot! What is the trick to
becoming a know-it-all?

where did you get the idea i had the answer to everything?

i am *very* familiar with itunes and your story could not have happened
as described. something else is going on but you don't seem interested
to learn what may have happened. instead, you just want to bitch about
microsoft and apple for 'taking over'.

In article , Frank Slootweg
wrote:

everyone has a choice of browsers or whatever else they want to use.

software does not have an attitude nor does it take over, as was
previously claimed.

Okay then: Without turning off automatic updates, how do I keep MS from
downloading their next incarnation of Edge to my computer as they did
with their last one 2 days ago. As I mentioned, it was not elementary
to shut down it's "introduction" either. There was no easy "choice" for
that.. (but I found a way).

Exactly! On Windows 8.1, Edge was pushed this week as an 'Important'
*update*. So contrary to nospam's claims (above and later), Edge was
*forced* on anyone who elected to automatically install updates.
(Luckily 8.1. still has a choice to *not* automatically install
updates.)

i never claimed that edge was not included in any update.

what i claimed above and elsewhere was that everyone has a choice in
what they use.

if you don't want to use edge, then don't use it. very simple.

microsoft would prefer it if you did, therefore they will include it in
an update, but you can always ignore it if you don't want to use it.

nobody is forced to use anything they don't want.

"123456789" wrote

| I just want the option to have a menu bar, like all conforming
| Windows software has.
|
| All? You mean like the menu bar the new Edge has...
|

True, the standards have been changing. And Microsoft
introduced the ribbon menu. But historically, MS have been
pushy about conformity, and it's worked out well. Nearly every
program has some combination of File, Edit, View, Help, etc.
Those menus are then reflected, as appropriate, in the
context menu. So anyone using a new program has a good
idea of how to use it starting out.

But I think that phones, and to some extent tablets,
are changing that. As fewer people actually do work on
a computer, instead texting or Facebooking on phones,
the PC OS designs are being phased out. Maybe they just
don't want to have to design more than one UI. But it's
still a frivolous design decision to just remove PC design
elements on PCs when they don't need to. There are still
hundreds of millions of PCs in use.

| Since I only use Chrome for 2 sites it would actually make more sense
| to put those 2 links on the main toolbar, rather than wasting window
| space.
|
| How about putting your most used link on the Chrome home button. That's
| 50% of your problem solved...
|
Chrome home button? I don't think I even want to know.
It's not a big deal, since I'm only starting Chrome when I
want to watch a movie through my library. I'm not doing
web browsing. I wouldn't even use Chrome to look up reviews
for the movies. I installed FF on the Pi for that, youtube,
and any other browsing that's not the library streaming site.

But that inflexible design is one of the numerous
reasons that I wouldn't use Chrome. (Plus, of course, the
limited settings in general and the spyware... and the fact
that I would *never* use anything from Google. I'd sooner
put up with Apple sleaze. But I hope to never have to use
either. It's a mystery to me why anyone else does. Apple,
at least, makes very solid, easy-to-use products. They cost
a small fortune, but they're pretty and they work. No one
needs to use Chrome. Yet it's become the top browser. The
only explanation I can think of is that the same suckers who
use gmail and other Google services like the convenient tie-in.
They can take care of most of their online needs with a single,
convenient uber-tracking-collar. I suppose it's probably the
same people who "log in with Google" rather than take the
trouble to set up logins at websites.

Mayayana wrote:

Microsoft introduced the ribbon menu. But historically, MS have been
pushy about conformity, and it's worked out well.

Yep. I like the ribbon menu too. But I'll likely survive its widening
demise. Or maybe not at my age...

it's still a frivolous design decision to just remove PC design
elements on PCs when they don't need to.

IMO MS will likely start designing more for the average Joe (not you
geeks) with Chromebooks looking up their ass. Their first try was S
Mode. It came installed on my 11 incher. Sad...

that inflexible design is one of the numerous reasons that I wouldn't
use Chrome.

I'm assimilated. Too late for me.

and the spyware...

I was being so careful when I brought this 11 incher out of S Mode. Used
a fake name and email with MS. Then immediately switched over to a
local account. Nowhere did I use my real name until I signed in to my
Google account in Chrome. Then when I upgraded to the new Edge the damn
thing (Edge) called me by my real name when it asked if I wanted my
bookmarks transferred from Chrome. Wonder what else Edge sucked out of
Chrome and slipped to MS... 8-O

that I would *never* use anything from Google.

You sure you're not Arlen in disguise?

I'd sooner put up with Apple sleaze.

Admit it. You are Arlen aren't you...

"123456789" wrote

| that I would *never* use anything from Google.
|
| You sure you're not Arlen in disguise?
|
| I'd sooner put up with Apple sleaze.
|
| Admit it. You are Arlen aren't you...

Is Arlen anti-Apple and anti-Google? I thought
he was just pro-freeware. More specifically, looking
to brainstorm with all his Usenet assistants to
determine the unequivocally best, easiest, free
program that will perform the tasks done by all other
programs, better than they do, as well as do the
vacuuming, rake the leaves, and clean the bathroom.
And of course the software must be:

o FREE
o Easy to use
o Performs all possible tasks better than other products
o Has multi-lingual functionality
o Not ABSOLUTELY required but still desired -
o Good with children
o Experience housecleaning
o Experience landscaping
o 5 yrs experience with exotic commandline calls
o Converts plain text files to databases without needing
direction
o Can function as an inflatable sex doll
o Can function as a *self-cleaning* inflatable sex doll
o Reduces carbon emissions from something or other

Mayayana wrote:


o FREE
o Easy to use
o Performs all possible tasks better than other products
o Has multi-lingual functionality
o Not ABSOLUTELY required but still desired -
o Good with children
o Experience housecleaning
o Experience landscaping
o 5 yrs experience with exotic commandline calls
o Converts plain text files to databases without needing
direction
o Can function as an inflatable sex doll
o Can function as a *self-cleaning* inflatable sex doll
o Reduces carbon emissions from something or other

Take my money!

You are a whiz at marketing.

You could sell frozen fish dinners to Eskimos.

Paul

On 2020-06-18 5:19 p.m., Mayayana wrote:
"123456789" wrote

| that I would *never* use anything from Google.
|
| You sure you're not Arlen in disguise?
|
| I'd sooner put up with Apple sleaze.
|
| Admit it. You are Arlen aren't you...

Is Arlen anti-Apple and anti-Google? I thought
he was just pro-freeware. More specifically, looking
to brainstorm with all his Usenet assistants to
determine the unequivocally best, easiest, free
program that will perform the tasks done by all other
programs, better than they do, as well as do the
vacuuming, rake the leaves, and clean the bathroom.
And of course the software must be:

o FREE
o Easy to use
o Performs all possible tasks better than other products
o Has multi-lingual functionality
o Not ABSOLUTELY required but still desired -
o Good with children
o Experience housecleaning
o Experience landscaping
o 5 yrs experience with exotic commandline calls
o Converts plain text files to databases without needing
direction
o Can function as an inflatable sex doll
o Can function as a *self-cleaning* inflatable sex doll
o Reduces carbon emissions from something or other




o And balance you tires. :-)

Rene

nospam wrote:
In article , Bill
wrote:

As far as Apple goes, when I downloaded I-Tunes, it converted all of my
mp3 files (thousands of them) into a different format without my
permission.

no it very definitely did not do that.

transcoding music in itunes is user initiated, requiring the user to
first manually select songs and then select convert, along with having
previously chosen which format, bit rate, cbr/vbr, etc.

transcoding does *not* happen automatically or without warning.

also, transcoding *adds* a new version of the song alongside the
original, which is left untouched and unmodified. nothing is deleted.

that means you'll end up with *two* copies of each song, which would
require significant additional disk space for all of the thousands of
newly converted songs.

not only that, but converting thousands of mp3s would take a
significant amount of time, something which would be obvious as to
what's happening, and during which time you could cancel at any point.

so no, it did *not* convert your mp3 files to another format without
permission or without your knowledge. not possible.

I'd call that "attitude", or call it what you like
(presumptuous?). Either way, it's obnoxious.

i'd call that completely impossible as described.

If you don't like
"personification"... maybe it would be more fair to say that software
reflects the attitude of the people who are responsible for it. And
where it is poor, those people deserve to be called out for the PITA
they created.

what would be fair is to not misrepresent what happened.


It must be quite wonderful to have the answer to everything right at the
tip of your fingertips...with attitude to boot! What is the trick to
becoming a know-it-all?

where did you get the idea i had the answer to everything?

i am *very* familiar with itunes and your story could not have happened
as described. something else is going on but you don't seem interested
to learn what may have happened. instead, you just want to bitch about
microsoft and apple for 'taking over'.

I didn't say you had the answer to everything. Literally, I said you
had it at the tip of your fingertips...with attitude to boot. I also
never said Microsoft (capitalized) and Apple were "taking over", and I
don't use "the cloud". And I don't "bitch", I'm just trying to
illustrate for you the way that you come across. You're probably not
the smartest guy in the room... (as I think, with no offense intended,
that Paul is several steps above you). Being a smart aleck doesn't help
anyone else, and accomplishes very, very little. You'll never gain a
step by being a smart aleck.

In article , Bill
wrote:


As far as Apple goes, when I downloaded I-Tunes, it converted all of my
mp3 files (thousands of them) into a different format without my
permission.

no it very definitely did not do that.

transcoding music in itunes is user initiated, requiring the user to
first manually select songs and then select convert, along with having
previously chosen which format, bit rate, cbr/vbr, etc.

transcoding does *not* happen automatically or without warning.

also, transcoding *adds* a new version of the song alongside the
original, which is left untouched and unmodified. nothing is deleted.

that means you'll end up with *two* copies of each song, which would
require significant additional disk space for all of the thousands of
newly converted songs.

not only that, but converting thousands of mp3s would take a
significant amount of time, something which would be obvious as to
what's happening, and during which time you could cancel at any point.

so no, it did *not* convert your mp3 files to another format without
permission or without your knowledge. not possible.

I'd call that "attitude", or call it what you like
(presumptuous?). Either way, it's obnoxious.

i'd call that completely impossible as described.

If you don't like
"personification"... maybe it would be more fair to say that software
reflects the attitude of the people who are responsible for it. And
where it is poor, those people deserve to be called out for the PITA
they created.

what would be fair is to not misrepresent what happened.


It must be quite wonderful to have the answer to everything right at the
tip of your fingertips...with attitude to boot! What is the trick to
becoming a know-it-all?

where did you get the idea i had the answer to everything?

i am *very* familiar with itunes and your story could not have happened
as described. something else is going on but you don't seem interested
to learn what may have happened. instead, you just want to bitch about
microsoft and apple for 'taking over'.

I didn't say you had the answer to everything. Literally, I said you
had it at the tip of your fingertips...with attitude to boot. I also
never said Microsoft (capitalized) and Apple were "taking over", and I
don't use "the cloud". And I don't "bitch", I'm just trying to
illustrate for you the way that you come across. You're probably not
the smartest guy in the room... (as I think, with no offense intended,
that Paul is several steps above you). Being a smart aleck doesn't help
anyone else, and accomplishes very, very little. You'll never gain a
step by being a smart aleck.

paul knows next to nothing about itunes.

all he did was do a search for itunes and dissect what it installs,
which has nothing whatsoever to do with what you wrote about format
conversions.

you made the claim that itunes converted your music without permission,
something which is absolutely *false*.

under *no* circumstances will itunes convert anything without the user
explicitly initiating the process. full stop.

also, as i said, conversion creates an *additional* copy of the songs,
with the originals untouched, so even if it was initiated by mistake
and nobody noticed what it was doing, simply delete the new songs and
you're back to exactly where you started, as if nothing happened.

put simply: it's non-destructive.

you have had a few opportunities to explain in further detail what you
did and why you think itunes did what you think it did, maybe learning
something in the process, but instead, you just want to argue and
attack.

in other words, *you* are the one with the attitude.

On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 16:16:37 -0400, Mayayana wrote:

"123456789" wrote

| I just want the option to have a menu bar, like all conforming
| Windows software has.
|
| All? You mean like the menu bar the new Edge has...
|

True, the standards have been changing. ...

It seems to have passed you by, that design standards now favour
search tools rather than cascading multi-level menus. This was for
very good usability reasons. Some programs offer a choice of menu
types (standards if you will) but that adds complexity to the
program, not a 'good thing'.

On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 12:14:13 -0400, Bill wrote:

[nospam]
It must be quite wonderful to have the answer to everything right at the
tip of your fingertips...with attitude to boot! What is the trick to
becoming a know-it-all?

At least he knows how to snip!

On 18 Jun 2020 19:08:11 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:

So Microsoft lied twice on this: It isn't an update, but a new and
extra program and it isn't 'Important', but at best 'Recommended'
or 'Optional'.

That seems a little strong - presumably MSFT regards the 'new' Edge
as an improvement and will move to support that, rather than the
legacy version, in the future. Pushing it out as an update seems
sensible,

"mechanic" wrote
|
| It seems to have passed you by, that design standards now favour
| search tools rather than cascading multi-level menus. This was for
| very good usability reasons. Some programs offer a choice of menu
| types (standards if you will) but that adds complexity to the
| program, not a 'good thing'.

That hasn't passed me by, but I think the story is more
complicated. Much of the change reflects the needs of
a phone GUI, where only one simple window can display
at a time. The trend toward simplicity also coincides with
the trend toward a software model of free or rental spyware
with datamining. A top menu bar is not an obstacle. It's
what Windows users have expected for at least 25 years.
There's still the combo address bar and search bar, for
anyone stupid enough to do their searches there. But the
motive for that is spyware, not convenience.

There's currently a debate about this with respect to
Chrome. As I understand it, Google have decided to remove
all but the base domain from the address bar, "so people
won't be confused". But Google have also been arguing
for removal of the address bar altogether. We could speculate
that's for "usability", but the argument doesn't hold up. If
they want to design usability then the trick is options and
intuitive functionality.
If they want a simple UI on phones they should do that,
but only on phones. It's counter-productive on a desktop.
They could have a setting to show the menu bar....
Have a setting to shut off spyware search in the address bar.
Which is basically what I have now in FF52.

Simplicity as usability is a kind of chicken and egg issue.
If you turn the address bar into search then only the geeks
will know what a URL is. And that's just what's happened.
Google wants to keep people on their properties without
knowing it, just as AOL used to keep people locked up.
These companies are systematically trying to dumb down
the public. Just as Microsoft always hides settings behind a
button marked "Advanced". That's not for usability. It's to
intimidate people so that they won't try to understand
their options.

The first time I used a computer I went onto AOL on
a friend's computer. Another friend, a Mac tech support
person, explained to me that AOL was not the Internet.
It took a couple of phone calls before I figured out how
to slip out the back door of AOL's mall to the free world
outside. That's what Google might call "usability" -- the
ability to buy stuff and give them loads of personal data
without needing to do anything more than type "new dress"
and then click "Buy Now".

I think there's also an element of geek arrogance there.
There's an old joke in the programming world that the ultimate
business software is "one button, no directions". Geeks tend
to be partially socialized people with limited life experience and
partial English literacy. As a result, GUIs are devalued and
no one wants to write help files. The extreme of that is Linux,
where you're often expected to do your own compiling if
you want to use software. "You want directions? The code's
right there, swifty! Get to work." That's also why so much
software is designed to look like it's for kids. Everything Apple.
Emojis. Silly names like Yahoo. It all embodies an assumption
that anyone who can't compile their own software -- like
doctors, lawyers, writers, teachers, chemists, and other halfwits --
must be treated like a child.

Speaking of childish names and products, there's a new
email service for $100/year called "Hey". Want to join? Send
an email to and tell them why you want an
invitation.
I'm not kidding. This is real. On top of that they seem to
advertise almost nothing but spam filters for that 100 bucks a
year. But if you use a Mac you may have to wait. Hey is refusing
to pay Apple's 30% extortion rate to be in the app store. It's
like clash of the sleazeball titans.

The bottom line is that anyone trying to provide usability
provides options. There's no excuse for not having a menu
available. And certainly people are not going to be flustered
by a menu. If they're intimidated by a menu that says File
or Edit, they're never even going to discover the non-intuitive
hamburger button. So why is that design being used on
webpages? Because the kiddie webmasters only go online with
their phones and the hamburger button is designed for phones.
(After all, it would be hard to argue that commercial webpages
don't want you using their menus.)

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

There's currently a debate about this with respect to
Chrome. As I understand it, Google have decided to remove
all but the base domain from the address bar, "so people
won't be confused". But Google have also been arguing
for removal of the address bar altogether. We could speculate
that's for "usability", but the argument doesn't hold up. If
they want to design usability then the trick is options and
intuitive functionality.

tim berners-lee never intended for urls to be visible to users.

If they want a simple UI on phones they should do that,
but only on phones. It's counter-productive on a desktop.
They could have a setting to show the menu bar....

in fact, they did exactly that. modern web sites will show a hamburger
menu on smaller displays and a menu bar on larger displays, and can
even switch on the fly as the window is resized.

Have a setting to shut off spyware search in the address bar.
Which is basically what I have now in FF52.

google/bing/etc. will always see the searches you do, otherwise they
couldn't provide results.



Silly names like Yahoo. It all embodies an assumption
that anyone who can't compile their own software -- like
doctors, lawyers, writers, teachers, chemists, and other halfwits --
must be treated like a child.

like microsoft bob?
https://miro.medium.com/max/1280/0*tdLfaPtC_Vt5m6su.
https://hackaday.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/bob.png

and clippy?
https://artsy-media-uploads.s3.amazo...bJHiVYGxuw/off
icexp_clippy.png

mechanic wrote:
On 18 Jun 2020 19:08:11 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:

So Microsoft lied twice on this: It isn't an update, but a new and
extra program and it isn't 'Important', but at best 'Recommended'
or 'Optional'.

That seems a little strong - presumably MSFT regards the 'new' Edge
as an improvement and will move to support that, rather than the
legacy version, in the future. Pushing it out as an update seems
sensible,

Note that my comment was about Windows 8.1. For *that* version, it was
new/extra, i.e. there was no earlier Edge to 'update'.